now thats a big grain train!
Why doesn't ssr have the small trains run the wagons into Narrabri and then use the big loco's for over the mountain?At this stage their loco fleet is not large enough to allow them the luxury of leaving the smaller locos sitting around out in the boondocks waiting for an occasional run, but what you are suggesting is what would have been done by the NSWGR back in the day. Back then this train would probably have been worked by quad 48s between Merrywinebone and Narrabri or Werris Creek, with triple, or perhaps quad, 81s taking over for the remainder of the trip, and still being banked over Ardglen.
Back in the NSWGR days it would have been little more than half the length of this trainWhy doesn't ssr have the small trains run the wagons into Narrabri and then use the big loco's for over the mountain?At this stage their loco fleet is not large enough to allow them the luxury of leaving the smaller locos sitting around out in the boondocks waiting for an occasional run, but what you are suggesting is what would have been done by the NSWGR back in the day. Back then this train would probably have been worked by quad 48s between Merrywinebone and Narrabri or Werris Creek, with triple, or perhaps quad, 81s taking over for the remainder of the trip, and still being banked over Ardglen.
BW
My mistake with the load. What I originally quoted was the empty weight. That will teach me to read things more carefully.Back in the NSWGR days it would have been little more than half the length of this trainWhy doesn't ssr have the small trains run the wagons into Narrabri and then use the big loco's for over the mountain?At this stage their loco fleet is not large enough to allow them the luxury of leaving the smaller locos sitting around out in the boondocks waiting for an occasional run, but what you are suggesting is what would have been done by the NSWGR back in the day. Back then this train would probably have been worked by quad 48s between Merrywinebone and Narrabri or Werris Creek, with triple, or perhaps quad, 81s taking over for the remainder of the trip, and still being banked over Ardglen.
BW
I made two visits to Werris Creek in 1991 and 1993 and back then it was never more than 2 x 81s or 3 x 44s on the front of a grain train.
The loaded train was 4484T.
Thats got to be a lot of diesel burning that may not need to burn....ARTC has looked into the alternatives to allow less fuel to be used around Ardglen, but until the line capacity is reached I doubt things will change.
Looks like a practical joke, surely not, seven on the front?I think this was the second time that rake has run with seven locos up front. Later this week it is loading at Cryon, thus "little" locos are not needed, so at this stage it will have five larger locos up front, but it will still need to be banked over Ardglen by the two 48s.
Thats got to be a lot of diesel burning that may not need to burn....The 3 x branch liners only equate to a 3000 hp mainliner so its 5 mainliners, even less considering 2 of the mainliners are only 1800 hp each. No big deal.
It was interesting that the two 48 class were taken off the front and put on the back...Thats got to be a lot of diesel burning that may not need to burn....The 3 x branch liners only equate to a 3000 hp mainliner so its 5 mainliners, even less considering 2 of the mainliners are only 1800 hp each. No big deal.
It was interesting that the two 48 class were taken off the front and put on the back...Thats got to be a lot of diesel burning that may not need to burn....The 3 x branch liners only equate to a 3000 hp mainliner so its 5 mainliners, even less considering 2 of the mainliners are only 1800 hp each. No big deal.
Presumably they stayed on the north side of Ardglen.
The 49 class must be regarded as more suitable for the longer run to Carrington. In theory they use more fuel than the 48 class.
Peter
Fuel consumption of a 48 compared to a 49 is very similar. Mk1 48s however have a much smaller fuel tank compared to 49 so that’s the main reason they do longer trips.I think the two units on the train were actually 830s numbered in the Silverton 48s series, and would have had the small fuel tank.
Also as a fuel saving measure crews generally shut down middle small engines or at least take them off line once the Liverpool range has been climbed as they are not required for any more of the grades encountered further south.
Where are their G and C class?
Flogging 49 would nearly be pointless.
Fuel consumption of a 48 compared to a 49 is very similar. Mk1 48s however have a much smaller fuel tank compared to 49 so that’s the main reason they do longer trips.I think the two units on the train were actually 830s numbered in the Silverton 48s series, and would have had the small fuel tank.
Also as a fuel saving measure crews generally shut down middle small engines or at least take them off line once the Liverpool range has been climbed as they are not required for any more of the grades encountered further south.
Peter
With the mix of loco's on that train its quite an archaic roster in many respects, and certainly flies in the face of old rules and said capacity of old Generation diesels where the maximum number of engines coupled and worked through the jumpers were 4 engines, was said the electrical aspect was below what could be worked.Why doesn't ssr have the small trains run the wagons into Narrabri and then use the big loco's for over the mountain?At this stage their loco fleet is not large enough to allow them the luxury of leaving the smaller locos sitting around out in the boondocks waiting for an occasional run, but what you are suggesting is what would have been done by the NSWGR back in the day. Back then this train would probably have been worked by quad 48s between Merrywinebone and Narrabri or Werris Creek, with triple, or perhaps quad, 81s taking over for the remainder of the trip, and still being banked over Ardglen.
BW
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.